> Right. Assuming that the SDOs utilize similar attribute formats, and > the specifications are published, this should work. In particular, I > would like to eliminate the need for SDOs to utilize RADIUS standard > attributes just in order to have their specification widely > disseminated. In the long term the IETF should strive to assist SDOs in > defining their own RADIUS attributes. That is a very good idea. It would enhance interoperability, and reduce problems.
There is no inherent reason why SDO-defined RADIUS attributes are any less "legitimate" than ones defined by the IETF. I am puzzled by documents such as the RADIUS MIPv4 specification, which claim that the solution to interoperability issues between SDO-defined VSAs is to define attributes in the IETF standards space. You cannot solve an interoperability problem by creating *yet another* way to do something, particularly if the new way has to be significantly different from the existing VSA attributes, due to differences in the data models.
In such a case, it seems better to me to start from a single deployed set of VSA attributes, enhancing them with additional VSAs or standards space attributes as necessary.
-- to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>